Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 171:684 (Oct 2014)
Article: Periodical Reviews
Author: Jefferson P. Webster

---

BSac 171:684 (October-December 2014) p. 478

Periodical Reviews

By The Faculty and Library Staff of Dallas Theological Seminary

Jefferson P. Webster

Editor

“Soundly Gathered Out of the Text? Biblical Interpretation in ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,’ ” Garth E. Pauley, Westminster Theological Journal 76 (2014): 95-117.

Pauley, Professor of Rhetoric at Calvin College, argues that in Jonathan Edwards’s most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” the preacher “adapts the biblical text to a predetermined doctrine, misinterprets the subjects of Yahweh’s wrath in Deut 32:35, and fails to support its theological interpretation with solid exegesis” (p. 116). In short, “Edwards’s sermons are ambitious, engaging, biblical, and doctrinal. But, as ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ demonstrates, his doctrine is not always soundly gathered out of the text” (p. 117).

He selects this sermon to investigate “the contours of biblical interpretation embodied in New England Calvinist preaching—and especially Edwards’s particular version of it. The sermon is a canonical text in American religious history. It is an acknowledged rhetorical masterpiece and a notorious example of revival preaching. It is considered an exemplar of biblical and doctrinal preaching by many evangelical Protestants. It is also, at first glance, mistaken in its biblical interpretation” (p. 96). In the remainder of the essay, the author argues that his first glance was accurate.

The text for this sermon is Deuteronomy 32:35. According to Pauley, “Edwards seems to misinterpret his chosen text to advance a predetermined rhetorical purpose and doctrine” (p. 99). Pauley later admits that the writer of the book of Hebrews interprets this text similarly to the way Edwards does: “In any case, his interpretation of Deut 32:35, especially its notion of eschatological judgment, is consistent with its theological interpretation in Heb 10:30, at the expense of understanding its original context” (p. 109). In that case, it is hard to conceive how Edwards can be justly criticized.

Pauley further criticizes Edwards for failing to make clear what “Yahweh’s covenant with ancient Israel had to do with God’s saving purposes for them. . . . But even more attentive, theologically literate audience members may have been confused by Edwards’s passing reference to covenant theology in an awakening sermon ultimately about personal regeneration, conversion, and s...

visitor : : uid: ()